2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4

PDP Number: 2007-08
Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources

Dear Colleagues,

The draft document for the proposal described in 2007-08 has
been
published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this
proposal
has also been published.

This proposal outlines a framework to migrate previously
allocated
IPv4 resources from one Local Internet Registry (LIR) to
another LIR
within the RIPE NCC Service Region.

You can find the full proposal at:

    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html

    
and the draft document at:

   http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe
-424-draft2007-08.html

We encourage you to read the draft document text and send
any comments
to address-policy-wgripe.net before 15 April 2008.

Regards

Filiz Yilmaz
RIPE NCC 
Policy Development Officer

All,

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 06:01:54PM +0100, Filiz Yilmaz
wrote:
> PDP Number: 2007-08
> Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources

This policy mostly makes sense to me.

One thing I'm not sure about is this:

    LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR
cannot
    re-allocate complete or partial blocks of the same
address space
    to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the
re-allocation.

Is this to prevent IP address speculation and the
accompanying
boom/bust cycles? (Sorry if I missed a prior discussion
about this,
the thread surrounding the previous version was long and
meandering.)

This is reasonable, but I think it might be better to simply
state:
  
    Complete or partial blocks of the same address space
cannot be
    re-allocated within 24 months of a re-allocation.

Otherwise there is a difference between "bought"
and "leased"(*) space
(permanent and non-permanent re-allocation), since space
that is
re-allocated on a temporary basis can be re-allocated by
the
*original* LIR at any time.

Not a big deal. I support the policy either with or without
this
change.

--
Shane

(*) I know the RIRs shy away from such terms for various
reasons
    mostly to do with fear of government involvement, but I
propose we
    choose to be brave and use the terminology that best
matches
    intuition.

> One thing I'm not sure about is this:
> 
>     LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR
cannot
>     re-allocate complete or partial blocks of the same
address space
>     to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the
re-allocation.

Interesting. Since this policy seems to be saying that it
will be
legitimate for LIRs to trade addresse blocks, has anyone
investigated
whether or not restrictions, such as those above, would be
considered
illegal restraint of trade?

In addition, the fact that RIPE allows LIRs to trade
addresses directly
suggests that RIPE now considers IPv4 addresses to be
property. What
will be the legal impact on the clause in the IPv6 policy
which says
that IPv6 addresses are not property?

> (*) I know the RIRs shy away from such terms for
various reasons
>     mostly to do with fear of government involvement,
but I propose we
>     choose to be brave and use the terminology that
best matches
>     intuition.

If RIPE begins to treat IPv4 addresses in exactly the same
way they
would be treated under a lease agreement, then it is
possible that the
courts will decide that RIPE is actually leasing the IPv4
address blocks
even if RIPE avoids that language.

Imagine that I offer you an educational experience in which
you attend
my business premises every day and perform various tasks for
the
business as directed by me. And further imagine that I place
a certain
amount of cash in a certain desk drawer every Friday with
the
understanding that you can use this cash in any way that you
wish
whether personal or otherwise. Does this mean that our
arrangement is
immune to the laws regarding employment, and income tax
withholding,
etc.? Probably not. Even if we don't call it a
"job" and it is still
considered to be a job under the law.

I still fail to see any benefits at all, either to RIPE or
to LIRs, from
making it possible for LIRs to exchange address blocks
first, then tell
RIPE second. The current situation, where you tell RIPE
first (return
unused blocks, ask for more addresses) and receive addresses
second,
seems to work fine today and there is no reason that it will
not work 5
years from now.

--Michael Dillon

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 02:19:41PM -0000, michael.dillonbt.com
wrote:
> I still fail to see any benefits at all, either to RIPE
or to LIRs,
> from making it possible for LIRs to exchange address
blocks first,
> then tell RIPE second. The current situation, where you
tell RIPE
> first (return unused blocks, ask for more addresses)
and receive
> addresses second, seems to work fine today and there is
no reason
> that it will not work 5 years from now.

It won't work because the response you will get in 5 years
will be:

    Thanks for the unused blocks, unfortunately we have no
free blocks
    to give you. Can we interest you in some IPv6 space? It
tastes
    just as good as IPv4 and is less filling! It will keep
your
    network tubes clean and prevent bitrot!

Is the procedure really "return then ask"? Or it
is "ask then ask then
ask?" Networks have a nasty habit of growing larger
more often than
smaller.

--
Shane

michael.dillonbt.com wrote:
>> One thing I'm not sure about is this:
>>
>>     LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another
LIR cannot
>>     re-allocate complete or partial blocks of the
same address space
>>     to another LIR within 24 months of receiving
the re-allocation.
>>     
>
> Interesting. Since this policy seems to be saying that
it will be
> legitimate for LIRs to trade addresse blocks, has
anyone investigated
> whether or not restrictions, such as those above, would
be considered
> illegal restraint of trade?
>   
Ultimate acceptance of any policy rests with the RIPE NCC
board, who 
would be consulting counsel on this one, I suspect. Since no
one on this 
list is a lawyer, could we avoid uninformed legal
speculation?

Of course *if* there is a lawyer reading this list, feel
free to give us 
the benefit of your opinions

Nigel

Nigel

> > Interesting. Since this policy seems to be saying
that it will be 
> > legitimate for LIRs to trade addresse blocks, has
anyone 
> investigated 
> > whether or not restrictions, such as those above,
would be 
> considered 
> > illegal restraint of trade?
> >   
> Ultimate acceptance of any policy rests with the RIPE
NCC 
> board, who would be consulting counsel on this one, I 
> suspect. Since no one on this list is a lawyer, could
we 
> avoid uninformed legal speculation?

In order to make policy we need to know the limits within
which
we operate. Sometimes that means that we need to consult
lawyers
before we do things, rather than leaving it all to the RIPE
NCC board
to clean up later.

Please do not make personal attacks on people that you do
not know.
My question was based on INFORMED legal speculation. I've
done a
considerable amount of research and thinking about these
issues.

The policy proposal that we are discussing, wants to make a
fundamental
change to the character of IP addresses. I think it is a
good idea
for the whole community, not just the board, to get some
expert legal
input into the decision making process. As long as IP
addresses are not
property, we can regulate them strictly and arbitrarily. But
if the
character
of the addresses becomes more property-like, by allowing
them to be
traded,
does this create more limits on what RIPE can do in its
policy?

As far as I can see, we need expert legal advice to find out
the answers
to such questions.

--Michael Dillon

Michael,

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:36AM -0000, michael.dillonbt.com
wrote:
> The policy proposal that we are discussing, wants to
make a
> fundamental change to the character of IP addresses. I
think it is a
> good idea for the whole community, not just the board,
to get some
> expert legal input into the decision making process. As
long as IP
> addresses are not property, we can regulate them
strictly and
> arbitrarily. But if the character of the addresses
becomes more
> property-like, by allowing them to be traded, does this
create more
> limits on what RIPE can do in its policy?
> 
> As far as I can see, we need expert legal advice to
find out the
> answers to such questions.

I disagree. In fact, I can already predict what the lawyers
will say:

- We're not sure, because this is all new.
- But be scared - very scared!
- And you definitely need more lawyers.

So, I suggest we should NOT worry about whether or not IP
addresses
are property, but rather adopt policies that allow ISPs and
other LIRs
to get on with the business of running the Internet.

As I said before, I support the proposal. 

--
Shane

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:36AM -0000, michael.dillonbt.com
wrote:
> The policy proposal that we are discussing, wants to
make a fundamental
> change to the character of IP addresses. 

It doesn't.  IP addresses are still used to number things on
the Internet.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 
110584

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v.
Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG
Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Shane and all,

  ROFLMAO, your probably right!  >  I never
ceases to amaze
me that when there is something that a lawyer doesn't
understand
completely, far too often their advise is to advise in the
paranoid
rather than just plane old caution.  Maybe that's because
they are
worried that they may have to actually defend their
client(s) or
admit that they are not up to the task to do so competently
and
don't know how to become competent to do so.  But than
again
IT law is relatively new, and is seemingly always changing
in a
fairly rapid manner..

Shane Kerr wrote:

> Michael,
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:36AM -0000,
michael.dillonbt.com wrote:
> > The policy proposal that we are discussing, wants
to make a
> > fundamental change to the character of IP
addresses. I think it is a
> > good idea for the whole community, not just the
board, to get some
> > expert legal input into the decision making
process. As long as IP
> > addresses are not property, we can regulate them
strictly and
> > arbitrarily. But if the character of the addresses
becomes more
> > property-like, by allowing them to be traded, does
this create more
> > limits on what RIPE can do in its policy?
> >
> > As far as I can see, we need expert legal advice
to find out the
> > answers to such questions.
>
> I disagree. In fact, I can already predict what the
lawyers will say:
>
> - We're not sure, because this is all new.
> - But be scared - very scared!
> - And you definitely need more lawyers.
>
> So, I suggest we should NOT worry about whether or not
IP addresses
> are property, but rather adopt policies that allow ISPs
and other LIRs
> to get on with the business of running the Internet.
>
> As I said before, I support the proposal. 
>
> --
> Shane

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k
members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not
with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the
burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied
by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]
============================================================
===
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data
security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

michael.dillonbt.com wrote:
> Please do not make personal attacks on people that you
do not know.
> My question was based on INFORMED legal speculation.
I've done a
> considerable amount of research and thinking about
these issues.
>   
My comment was not personal. It was intended to try and
contain the sort
of mobius discussion we have seen on the PPML list, before
it started on
this list too.

Anybody that wishes to take expert legal advice is of course
free to do
so at any time.

Nigel

> It doesn't.  IP addresses are still used to number
things on 
> the Internet.

Right now IP address allocations/assignments are tied to a
hierarchy
with RIPE (or another RIR) at its root. RIPE gives blocks to
LIRs who
give blocks to end users. When an end user or LIR no longer
needs the
block, it is returned back up the hierarchy.

This proposal changes that and allows address block holders
to transfer
them to some other organization. This makes addresses more
like physical
property which is passed from one person to another without
any prior
relationships. And I believe that it is inevitable that once
this is
allowed,  transfers will be made without following RIPE
rules. If the
recipient runs into difficulty in using their new addresses
and
perceives RIPE to be the problem, then lawsuits will be
raised against
RIPE for interfering in the trading of addresses.

I know that the proposal does not discuss selling addresses
like
property, however this RIPE proposal is just one of several
which are
before APNIC and ARIN. The people who have originated the
ideas behind
this proposal, have talked about an open IP address market
for several
years. So even though this proposal is only a first step,
and does not
fully create an open IP address trading market, I believe
that it is
important to consider where this may lead, before accepting
the
proposal.

If, like me, you do not want to go all the way towards an
open market
for buying and selling IP addresses, then you might want to
make the
same decision as I have made, and oppose this proposal as
unneccessary.

I have no doubt that my company, and many others, will
return their
unused IPv4 allocations to RIPE when the IPv6 rollout makes
these IPv4
addresses unneccessary. To do otherwise would pose a
significant risk of
legal action because it would constitute restraint of trade,
i.e.
punishing smaller competitors by witholding IPv4 addresses
that those
competitors would use. I don't believe that my company, or
most of the
other large European telecoms companies, would see any
significant
incentive in being able to charge a fee for transfering an
IPv4
allocation to a 3rd party. The real incentive is to avoid
the risk of
regulatory and legal action by returning the unneeded
resources, and
competing based on the quality of our services. I believe
that this
incentive has a much larger financial impact than any
trading system
could possibly have, to the extent that I expect larger ISPs
to bend
over backwards to help IPv4-dependent ISPs use the
inevitably small
block sizes that will be available.

I do NOT speak for the ETNO, however I am aware that the
large European
telecoms companies who form ETNO, have come to a consensus
that the
development of a market for IP addresses whould be
discouraged.  Anyone
who was at RIPE 55 will have seen this presentation:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-5
5/presentations/mcfadden-etno.pd
f

I believe that allowing the transfer of allocation directly
between LIRs
is a step in development of a market for IP addresses, and
for this
reason we should reject the proposal entirely.

Currently RIPE plays a unique and trusted role in the area
of IP address
management, where companies who compete vigorously in the
marketplace
can fairly and openly cooperate with each other, and with
non-comercial
users of the resource (IP addresses) on which their networks
depend. We
trust RIPE. There is no need to enable transfers that do not
have RIPE
as an intermediary. In particular, as IPv4 exhaustion begins
to pinch
us, it is highly likely that there will be two or more
organizations
that want to receive the free address block. We don't want
to be making
decisions on who receives the addresses that we free up. We
would rather
return them to RIPE and have those decisions made
impartially.

--Michael Dillon

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:30:44AM -0000, michael.dillonbt.com
wrote:
> This proposal changes that and allows address block
holders to transfer
> them to some other organization. This makes addresses
more like physical
> property which is passed from one person to another
without any prior
> relationships. And I believe that it is inevitable that
once this is
> allowed,  transfers will be made without following RIPE
rules. 

You seem to assume that this will not happen if we don't
have a policy
for "well-documented and well-coordinated
transfers".

To the contrary: IP address blocks are already traded around
(if only
by buying whole companies that happen to have a nice address
block).

The point of the proposal is to have an instrument to
actually control
and document (!) the transfer of IP address blocks.

[..]
> I have no doubt that my company, and many others, will
return their
> unused IPv4 allocations to RIPE when the IPv6 rollout
makes these IPv4
> addresses unneccessary. 

I wish I could share your faith.  I'm very sure that the
powers that 
decide in your company will recognize the market value of
IPv4 address
blocks, as soon as the addresses run out, and find a way to
make money
out of them.  Especially large companies are expert at
moving assets to
daughter companies and selling those.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 
110584

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v.
Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG
Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

> My comment was not personal. It was intended to try and

> contain the sort of mobius discussion we have seen on
the 
> PPML list, before it started on this list too.

Mobius discussions are created when people don't take the
time
to read and understand each other's messages. This happens
more
often on the ARIN list because there are more people who
don't
really understand what ARIN, many of them small business
owners.
Also, there is the whole American tendency to see things in
terms of black and white, Republican and Democrat, which
makes
it much harder to converge a discussion towards consensus.
In general, the APWG list does not suffer from these
problems.

> Anybody that wishes to take expert legal advice is of
course
> free to do so at any time.

Of course. But how does the RIPE community as a whole get
expert
legal advice prior to the board's review of policy? In other
words
a proactive type of advice rather than a reactive
cover-your-behind
type of legal review.

Perhaps if we ask for such advice on the list, then the
meeting 
organizers might take the time to find a legal expert who
can
make a presentation at a future RIPE meeting. That way
everybody
can benefit from the information.

--Michael Dillon

> I wish I could share your faith.  I'm very sure that
the 
> powers that decide in your company will recognize the
market 
> value of IPv4 address blocks, as soon as the addresses
run 
> out, and find a way to make money out of them. 
Especially 
> large companies are expert at moving assets to daughter

> companies and selling those.

I think the ETNO consensus shows that the large companies
running IP
networks in Europe do not think that way about IP addresses.
In
particular, the effort required (and associated cost) in
order to move
IP assets into daughter companies, is not really justifiable
for a
flash-in-the-pan market. 

Any market for IPv4 addresses will only exist for a short
time, and high
prices which would justify this type of sale will exist for
an even
shorter time. It is just not that expensive to transition to
IPv6. Most
of the cost nowadays, lies in development of a fully
transparent
IPv4-IPv6 Internet access service. That work is now being
done openly by
many companies, and when the IPv4 shortage starts to be
felt, most
companies will be in a position to roll out IPv6 without
excessive
costs.

--Michael Dillon

michael.dillonbt.com wrote:
> Of course. But how does the RIPE community as a whole
get expert
> legal advice prior to the board's review of policy? In
other words
> a proactive type of advice rather than a reactive
cover-your-behind
> type of legal review.
>   
That is actually quite an interesting and far reaching
question and 
applies to any resources requested by the RIPE community.

The RIPE community has, of course, no monetary resources of
its own to 
call on. Where such resources are required, the RIPE NCC has

traditionally provided them. I think what you are asking is
that either 
the RIPE NCC pays for legal advice to be given to the RIPE
community or 
that some lawyer be found to give pro bono advice.
Ultimately the Board 
decides on whether RIPE NCC resources should be allocated to
the 
community, of course, although mostly it just passes them
through on the 
nod and this could be no exception.

However, I do share Shane's pessimism about the likely
outcome of 
involving lawyers.
> Perhaps if we ask for such advice on the list, then the
meeting 
> organizers might take the time to find a legal expert
who can
> make a presentation at a future RIPE meeting. That way
everybody
> can benefit from the information.
>   
We can but hope.

Nigel

michael.dillonbt.com wrote:
> Any market for IPv4 addresses will only exist for a
short time, and high
> prices which would justify this type of sale will exist
for an even
> shorter time. It is just not that expensive to
transition to IPv6. Most
> of the cost nowadays, lies in development of a fully
transparent
> IPv4-IPv6 Internet access service. That work is now
being done openly by
> many companies, and when the IPv4 shortage starts to be
felt, most
> companies will be in a position to roll out IPv6
without excessive
> costs.
>   
I share your opinions on the likely length of existence for
this market, 
which is why I see no great harm in the proposal and even
less 
likelihood of governments and regulators getting involved.
The intention 
is provide a short period of IPv4 fluidity to ease
transition to IPv6.

Nigel

Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> [speaking as a private citizen and not as RIPE NCC
staffer]
>
> In my reality that is not quite right and it is
important to be clear:
>
> The policies we re discussing are made by RIPE using
its PDP which is 
> described in http://ww
w.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-428.html .
>
> There is no direct involvement of the RIPE NCC other
than providing support. 
>
> There is no involvement of the RIPE NCC board other
than its members ability
> to participate in a personal capacity.
>   
Yes, you are quite right and I should have been clearer in
my response. 
The RIPE NCC board only has involvement once the RIPE NCC is
asked to 
implement policy. However the board has a duty to feed back
through the 
PDP during the development process if it feels that a
policy, which is 
currently under development may not be implementable by the
RIPE NCC for 
whatever reason. We have seen the recent consequences of
this duty being 
neglected.

I'm not entirely sure through what formal channel this
feedback should 
come (if indeed there is a formal channel), but I have taken
the step of 
making sure that future board meetings should include a
section on 
current policies under development so that we can spot them
coming.

Hope this clarifies my previous remarks

Nigel

On 19.03 18:03, Nigel Titley wrote:
> michael.dillonbt.com wrote:
> >>One thing I'm not sure about is this:
> >>
> >>    LIRs that receive a re-allocation from
another LIR cannot
> >>    re-allocate complete or partial blocks of
the same address space
> >>    to another LIR within 24 months of
receiving the re-allocation.
> >>    
> >
> >Interesting. Since this policy seems to be saying
that it will be
> >legitimate for LIRs to trade addresse blocks, has
anyone investigated
> >whether or not restrictions, such as those above,
would be considered
> >illegal restraint of trade?
> >  
> Ultimate acceptance of any policy rests with the RIPE
NCC board, who 
> would be consulting counsel on this one, I suspect.
Since no one on this 
> list is a lawyer, could we avoid uninformed legal
speculation?

[speaking as a private citizen and not as RIPE NCC staffer]

In my reality that is not quite right and it is important to
be clear:

The policies we re discussing are made by RIPE using its PDP
which is 
described in http://ww
w.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-428.html .

There is no direct involvement of the RIPE NCC other than
providing support. 

There is no involvement of the RIPE NCC board other than its
members ability
to participate in a personal capacity.

Once a policy is made which involves implementation by the
RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC
and its board have the reponsibility for the implementation
and the responsibility
to review whether he policy can be implemented in terms of
operational resources or
other significant concerns such as a policiy's legality or
the possibiliy of successful
litigation against the RIPE NCC etc. pp.

Some recent examples have shown that we may want to amend
the PDP to eplicitly include
legal and operational reviews by the RIPE NCC at appropriate
stages in order to check
these things early on rather than after the fact. Personally
I am in favour of that. 
Let us learn the useful things from ARIN's PDP. 

However we should be clear that the purview of the RIPE NCC
board is the RIPE NCC and
that does not include policy development wihtin RIPE.

Daniel

On 27.05 15:24, Nigel Titley wrote:
> ... 
> I'm not entirely sure through what formal channel this
feedback should 
> come (if indeed there is a formal channel), but I have
taken the step of 
> making sure that future board meetings should include a
section on 
> current policies under development so that we can spot
them coming.


That is very appropriate. 

My suggestion for the procedureal channel is to strengthen
the
operational reviews during the discussion and review phase
in the PDP
and making them explicit in the PDP document.  There should
be both an
operational and a legal review by the RIPE NCC.  The legal
review could
be defined broader than just looking at the impact on the
RIPE NCC. 
ARIN's review procedures could be considered as examples for
this. 

I proposed this at the WG chairs meeting in Berlin, but I am
afraid this
may have been drowned by the concrete matter at hand. 

> Hope this clarifies my previous remarks

It indeed does.  I knew what you meant but I found it
important to
prevent any mis-interpretations. 

Daniel